It's hard to learn a new language. An internal 2012 Immigration Canada report has revealed a rising proportion of immigrants, more than 600,000, work in Canada in a language other than English and French. And most of them, 60 per cent, say they cannot carry on a conversation in either of Canada's official languages.

The newcomer struggling to speak English who, as a result, has grave trouble trying to get a job.

The person who can’t communicate with medical staff during an emergency, making her dire situation more dangerous.

The classes filled with English-as-a-second language students; leading to concerns that teachers aren’t giving much attention to students who need to focus on other things.

The breakdowns in communication during condominium council meetings that have been called to discuss urgent costly repairs, sometimes leading to chaos and suspicion.

Such reports, whether they come from neighbours, health officials, school boards or others, illustrate how the difficulties of communicating across different languages can make it harder to build a sense of security and trust.

The Canadian government is taking heed of such stories. And it’s slowly following the lead of some European and other nations in addressing the language minefield.

Jason Kenney, minister of immigration, has been gradually increasing language-proficiency requirements for some immigrants. The changes will have a far-reaching impact.

But, first, what are Canada’s language facts?

The 2011 census discovered more than one in five Canadians, almost seven million people, speak a language other than English or French at home. The most common languages, in order, are Punjabi, Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish and Tagalog.

In Metro Vancouver, the proportion of residents who don’t speak English or French at home rises to one out of three.

It has been difficult for researchers to access data on the portion of residents who cannot speak French or English, a problem acute among immigrant seniors, stay-at-homes and those functioning outside the wage system.

But an internal 2012 Immigration Canada report, obtained under Access to Information legislation, has revealed what is going on in workplaces.

The report shows a rising proportion of immigrants, more than 600,000, work in Canada in a language other than English and French.

And most of them, 60 per cent, say they cannot carry on a conversation in either of Canada’s official languages.

One study suggested wages for those who can’t speak English or French are one-third lower than for other Canadians.

In light of such language-driven economic difficulties, as well as those related to health, education and communication among neighbours, it is no surprise that most government-financed immigration-support groups, such as S.U.C.C.E.S.S., strongly urge newcomers to show discipline in the difficult task of learning a new language.

Kenney, for his part, has responded by gradually ratcheting up language requirements for some economic classes of immigrants. But Kenney is not alone among the world’s immigration ministers.

Many of the relatively few countries in the world that accept new immigrants – such as Britain, the Netherlands and Australia – have stricter language requirements than Canada for newcomers.

Three years ago, Britain – announcing an intention to reduce its annual intake of immigrants by more than half, to roughly 100,000 per year – went further than Canada in regard to so-called “family reunification” immigrants.

Britain began demanding that even immigrants who arrive to marry or join spouses will have to meet language-proficiency tests.

“Britain decided that love does not override the language requirement,” said Vancouver lawyer Richard Kurland, a veteran observer of immigration trends who advises the federal government and major corporations.

“And Canada definitely has what Britain is doing on its own radar.”

Any suggestions that tougher language restrictions are “anti-immigrant” or “racist” are easily debunked these days, Kurland said.

Governments everywhere, he said, set minimum-language thresholds for immigrants “to benefit their own country, which is the object of the system.”

In the Netherlands, for instance, politicians approved new laws that demand immigrants from non-European countries be tested before arriving – and after – for their ability with the Dutch language. Failure to meet minimum Dutch-language requirements can lead to deportation.

Meanwhile, Australia began as far back as the 1990s to tighten up its English-language demands. Its policy changes, according to studies, have led to improved economic and social outcomes for more new arrivals to Australia.

With Canada slowly tightening its language requirements, will its next wave of immigrants follow the Australian pattern? Will Canada bring in fewer immigrants from China, South Korea and other parts of Asia? The answer is more complicated than you would think.

With Canada slowly tightening its language requirements, will its next wave of immigrants follow the Australian pattern?

Will Canada, for instance, bring in fewer immigrants from China, South Korea and other parts of Asia?

University of Waterloo professor Mikal Skuterud and his Australian co-author, Andrew Clarke, tried to figure out exactly why the average Australian immigrant now does financially better than the average Canadian immigrant.

As they began their research, the two scholars expected to discover that immigrants to Australia from China and India would do better financially because they were required to first speak English.

But the researchers discovered Australia’s carefully pre-screened Chinese and Indian immigrants do no better than immigrants admitted under Canada’s less-demanding system.

Instead, Clarke and Skuterud found, Australia’s reformed immigration policy led to a shift in the ethnic composition of Australian immigrants.

Growth in immigration from Asia tailed off somewhat. And Australia began getting more immigrants from countries where English is predominant.

For instance, Australia began to receive almost 20 per cent of its immigrants from Britain. (In Canada, less than five per cent of recent arrivals are from Britain.)

Clarke and Skuterud said immigrants from Britain were more rapidly assimilated into the Australian culture and local labour markets, quickly achieving earnings similar to native-born Australians.

With Canada slowly tightening its language requirements, will its next wave of immigrants follow the Australian pattern?

Will Canada, for instance, bring in fewer immigrants from China, South Korea and other parts of Asia?

Will we gather more from countries where English (or French) is either predominant or commonplace – such as Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Kenya?

Kurland, who publishes an immigration newsletter called Lexus, says Canada will definitely start approving more newcomers who are already adept in English or French.

Foreigners who struggle with new languages will give up applying to come here. And citizenship, he said, will more likely be given to people who first arrive as foreign students, who can then prove they know one of Canada’s official languages.

But, unlike what happened in Australia, Kurland’s not convinced Canada’s language-proficiency changes will actually lead to a wholesale decline in immigrants from our top three source nations: China, India and the Philippines.

Canada’s more demanding language-proficiency requirements mainly apply to about 70,000 of the roughly 260,000 accepted each year, he said. They are mostly the newcomers in the economic and skills categories.

For now, those arriving in the family-reunification class are largely exempt.

And given that China and India each have more than one billion people, and the Philippines has almost 100 million, Kurland said those countries will have no trouble turning out 70,000 prospective immigrants a year who know English or French.

Not only will newcomers who speak English or French do better financially in Canada, Kurland said, they will be far less likely to isolate themselves in ethnic enclaves, a trend more exaggerated in Metro Vancouver than anywhere else in Canada.

“The evidence can no longer be ignored,” Kurland concluded. “Language is critical.”

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the “X” in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.